Forum > The Second World War

Dieppe "Operation Jubilee' Query

(1/2) > >>

Unlucky General:
Okay learned colleagues, I have a technical query.

I have been trawling through images on the internet for the Dieppe raid 1942 and very definitely observe a wrecked bren carrier on the beach. I have been wondering about the precise battalion structure for the infantry and in particular the elements of the support company.

I'm reasonably certain the anti-tank elements were still ATR and 2 pounders and the fire support 3" mortars and Vickers MMG. Personally I'd want a ride up the chert if I had the main components of the Vickers or a mortar but is it possible and does anyone know if they took their ATGs? I'd have assumes they intended to rely on close tank support for anti-tank capability.

Or am I off the mark completely?

vodkafan:
Not sure about the 2pdrs , I didn't think standard infantry battalions had AT gun platoons until 1943, when the original HQ Company was split into HQ Coy and separate Support Coy.
But Vickers MMGs were NEVER part of the infantry battalion line up, they were organized into Machine Gun battalions.

Having said all that, the battalions at Dieppe might have been re-organized, I don't know.

Ultravanillasmurf:
I think this is the second query on the Dieppe raid in recent weeks, I am surprised that something so significant but of such limited scope does not have the details readily available.

I look forward to hearing more on this subject (and will have to improve my knowledge on the subject).

Unlucky General:
Yes my misstatement about the Vickers - they would have been MG sections/platoons or companies from a MG Battalion - this was also the Australian practice.

I have read that the mortar crews dragged their equipment using 'dollies' with very mixed results - so I'm surmising that the carriers were not therefor theirs. A Flames of War ORBAT has carriers attached to elements of the Calgary tanks. The Churchills came in on LCTs; however, and I have images of carriers on LCMs so I remain confused. I'm still looking.

grant:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/cmhqrd-drqgmc-eng.asp?txtType=2&RfId=83

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cmhq/cmhq089.pdf

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cmhq/cmhq090.pdf

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cmhq/cmhq100.pdf

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cmhq/CMHQ101.pdf

Here are the five official Canadian Military HQ DHH reports written by LCol (then Major) C.P. Stacey, the official historian, and who the DHH building would be named after.

I wouldn’t believe anything that comes out of Flames of War. They use sketchy research mixed with pure fantasy.

Have a go at reading these reports and see what you can glean.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page